Allowed¶48

Mega It Store v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025WP/17318/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (T-IT) by Mega IT Store against Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), and CBDT. Keywords: section 148 notice quashed; section 148A(d) order quashed; Section 151A scope; AY 2017-18; Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022; Annexure A/B/C; Articles 226 & 227; certiorari; W.P. No. 28182/2024 followed/applied; liberty to revive pending Apex Court decision; M. Nagaprasanna J.; NC: 2025:KHC:38900.

What did the court decide?

Impugned show cause notice issued outside the scope of Section 151A of the Act obliterated; all further proceedings challenged in the petition quashed; liberty reserved to the Revenue to revive the petition if the Apex Court holds in its favour; contentions of both parties except the one noted remain open for consideration upon revival. ¶48

Mega It Store Vs the Deputy Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151A of the Act, and the further proceedings challenged in the petition (notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) of the IT Act dated 29.07.2022 for AY 2017-18, along with Instruction No. 1/2022), deserve to be quashed.

¶43

Court's answer

The impugned show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151A of the Act stands obliterated, and all further proceedings initiated thereto and challenged in the petition stand quashed.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the respondents-revenue to revive the petition in the event the Apex Court would hold in favour of the Revenue in the matter pending before it.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (single Bench, M. Nagaprasanna J.; NC: 2025:KHC:38900), allowing W.P. No. 17318 of 2022 (T-IT) on 28.08.2025 on grounds identical to those in W.P. No. 28182/2024 and connected matters disposed the same day, the reasons of which were applied to the present case. The impugned show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for AY 2017-18 outside the scope of Section 151A of the Act was obliterated, and the notice under section 148 of the IT Act dated 29.07.2022 and the order under section 148A(d) dated 29.07.2022 (DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044276108(1)), together with Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11.05.2022, were quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned. Liberty was reserved to the Revenue to revive the petition if the Apex Court holds in favour of the Revenue in the matter pending before it; remaining contentions of both sides were left open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38900 WP No. 17318 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.17318 OF 2022 (T-IT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

MEGA IT STORE (REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM FORMED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI GAURAV JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O DALPAT SINGH) 612, 80 FEET MAIN ROAD, NEAR SONY WORLD 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 095.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38900 WP No. 17318 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

¶19

INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (3) (1) BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095.

¶20

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. Y. V. RAVI RAJ & SRI. M. DILIP ADVOCATES)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

¶24

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE, THE INSTRUCTION NO.1/2022 DATED 11.05.2022 BEARING F.NO.279/MISC/M-51/2022-IT) ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:38900 WP No. 17318 of 2022

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶32

prayer:

¶33

“A. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, the Instruction No. 1/ 2022, dated 11.05.2022 bearing F.No. 279/Misc/M-51/2022-ITJ] issued by the First Respondent, enclosed as Annexure A;

¶34

B. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, the impugned Notice under section 148 of the IT Act issued by the Respondent 1, dated 29.07.2022 for the impugned AY 2017-18, enclosed as Annexure B;

¶35

C. Quash as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, the impugned Order bearing DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044276108(1), passed by the Second Respondent under section 148A (d) of the IT Act, dated 29.07.2022 for the impugned AY 2017-18, enclosed as Annexure C;

¶36

And

¶37

D. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including the costs of this writ petition.”

¶38

Heard Sri Tata Krishna, learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioner, Sri Y.V.Raviraj and Sri M. Dilip, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38900 WP No. 17318 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The grounds projected in the subject petition in

¶43

support of the prayer quoted supra are identical to the ones considered by this Court in W.P.No.28182/2024 and connected matters, disposed on 28.08.2025.

¶44

In the light of the issue being similar and the reasons rendered therein becomes applicable to the case at hand, the petition deserves to be disposed on the same lines. Therefore, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The impugned show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151A of the Act stand obliterated. All further proceedings initiated thereto, challenged in this petition would stand quashed.

¶47

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents - revenue to revive the petition in the event, the Apex Court would hold in favour of the Revenue in the matter pending before it.

¶48